To be fair, if you're not American, the attack on Pearl Harbour is quite the irrelevance in the grand scheme of things such that no, it probably isn't in most kids history lessons, there's just too much other far more important stuff from other nations histories than that part of American history. If they go near American history at all it tends to focus on the war of independence, the war of 1812 or the American civil war.

Certainly here in the UK Pearl Harbour was never on the agenda, we got taught about t

Even Slashdotters in there 50s and 60s are not old enough to remember the oil embargo or the attack Pearl Harbor Before the grammar Nazis kill me: Even Slashdotters in their 50s and 60s are not old enough to remember the oil embargo or the attack on Pearl Harbor

I think what he might be actually referring to is lately there's been this growing conspiracy theory that the US wanted Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor for basically no reason other than that we could one day drop nuclear bombs on them, and Japan was otherwise only interested in peace the whole time.

Few of anybody (even those who don't subscribe to these theories) actually realize just how militaristic Japan actually was...I mean they even made the Nazi's look like good guys in comparison (not only did they have their own form of concentration camps and racial superiority complex, but they also had rape camps and would starve and torture POWs.) Furthermore, while Germany was mostly about having its military do these things, for the Japanese, EVERYBODY was part of the effort, even going so far as to ordering their own citizens to commit mass suicide rather than permit military occupation of any towns.

Japan is already protected by the US nuclear program, so nothing really changes. But Japan has long had a policy of being "ready" for quick weaponization if needed. And it was already the case that the US position is generally that Japan has served their probation and can change their Constitution whenever they're ready to pick up their own defense bill. Recent regional provocation by China only strengthens that.

If China is so "concerned," maybe they should only claim legal maritime borders according to internationally agreed formulas, instead of trying to claim the whole Champa Sea.

They can pretty much guarantee that their provocative stance will increase the militarization of their neighbors. It could destroy the WTO, too, since they're members now. If they push too far, sanctions against them might prove very popular in the US because of the effect it would have on US manufacturing. The only way to avoid these consequences is not antagonize their neighbors.

Japan are probably worried that they are not in any way protected by the US nuclear program. They worry that the US would stop short of getting involved in world war 3 if China really did want to invade Japan. By building their own nuclear arsenal, they remove that possibility and maintain MAD with China.

If the US fails to support Japan in the case of Chinese agression we might just as well disolve the military and become a Chinese Satellite. As bad as it is now that's international suicide. I can guarantee that any politicians supporting such a stance might as well go back to being used car salesmen as well.

Exactly. China's claims over disputed waters with its neighbors is creating the conditions in which those neighbors either cozy up to the US, or, in the case of a heavily industrialized and wealthy nation like Japan, begin to reconsider their position so far as military position and investment.

they were put under a 'nuclear umbrella' - but only in response to nuclear threats. and since Russia has not used nuclear weapons, the US, UK etc are free to 'ignore' the problem. Ukrainians are understandably upset that they gave up their nukes.

see how Japan might interpret this action? what if China does something that upsets Japan? will the US get involved, or come up with reasons to ignore the problem? would China be much more careful around Japan if they were nuclear ar

However, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued that the Budapest memorandum does not apply to the 2014 Crimean crisis because separation of Crimea was driven by an internal political and social-economic crisis. Russia was never under obligation to force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will.

Russia knew the US would look for any conceivable way to avoid living up to their obligations. So they created one and the US bit. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be involved in any of this nonsense. We shouldn't be signing such things if we're not willing to live up to our obligations, but if in the event we do... like we did with Ukraine, we should be following through. Because we failed to, our other treaty partners don't trust us to live up to our agreements and develop their own weapons.

Russia signed the same treaty that agreed to honor and defend Ukrainian territorial integrity. The US signature didn't agree to come to Ukraine defense with American troops, it agreed to keep the US out of the Ukraine.

At the time this was signed the US was seen as a potential threat (the cold war had just ended) and the Russians as the potential solution to that threat. The intent of the treaty was that the US and their allies wouldn't invade Ukraine and if they did the Russians would defend them. For all i

It's pretty unlikely that US would have destabilized Ukraine to the extent it did in the first place if it had nukes. In this regard, Ukraine was a very good lesson in that if you're an independent country in which large empires have interests, you should probably get nuclear weapons and delivery systems sufficient to hit said empires.

- The context of the Ukrainian "surrender of it's nukes" was that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they ended up with the ownership of a number of nuclear warheads.- Given the context of the time, and granting the facts that they could neither secure them properly nor likely even use them as the arming codes were in Russian hands, the US, UK, and Russia signed a memo of understanding with Ukraine in exchange for their sending the warheads for reprocessing.

In the first place, this memo stated that the signatories: "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine..." and "...refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine...." Further, they agreed to seek UN security council action "...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;"

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no guarantee of territorial integrity (as has been implied heavily by media reporting). No terms of mutual defense, or assistance.

Finally, that this was a MEMO and not a ratifiable treaty lies at the heart of the matter: it was a dead-letter the moment it was signed, not worth the ink used to print it. Without treaty status it was merely an agreement in principle, of the moment, and utterly without binding power by the long-accepted standards of geopolitics.

By the letter of the memo, the US and UK have in fact fulfilled their obligations. (Russia clearly didn't "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.")

It should be clear, then, that Ukraine wasn't exactly beating its swords into plowshares; more accurately they were giving away their swords that they couldn't use anyway, in return for a tepid, unenforceable agreement that only was relevant in the event of an actual nuclear exchange. Was it worth it? It's been 20 years during which - pretty much - Russia has paid Ukraine's bills, sold them cheap gas, and largely subsidized their entire existence.

I'd agree that the spirit of the thing was much more broadly (and inaccurately) celebrated; on whose responsibility that rests, I'll leave to others. The fact is that in geopolitics and diplomacy, details MATTER.

Don't get me wrong; I don't believe Putin's seizure of the Crimea was legitimate by ANY standard. He's an old school Soviet (if not Tsarist) Man who has adroitly outmaneuvered the severely-outclassed US and EU administrations with a coup akin to Munich 1939.

Neither am I giving Obama a pass. The US was never going to (nor should it reasonably ever consider) become directly involved in a territory adjacent to Russia. Any rational view would recognize that Ukraine is substantially within the Russian sphere of influence. NEVERTHELESS, the US has ample tools in its toolbox to deal with "bad actors" in many indirect ways, and reassure our actual allies of our firm commitment to their security. Yet the US response has been confused, dilatory, impotent, and in many ways strengthened Putin's propaganda hand (The US sent the head of the CIA to a state where Russia accused the public movements of being 'inspired' by the west....seriously?). That Russia has - by most measures - pulled this off without lasting diplomatic consequence is shameful.

My point is this: the characterization of the Memo in the media has been deeply flawed. For all the criticisms that can be fairly laid at the doorstep of the west on this matter, failing to live up to that memo is NOT one of them.

or perhaps they would not have invaded at all, given a potential nuclear response.

it's easy to tell other nations that they should not have nukes, sitting in a nice safe position of having lots of them. no one wants nuclear proliferation, it's a very slippery slope - but from the point of view of nations who are being stamped on, would you trust the US to come to your aid, especially given how well it worked out for Ukraine?

In the Budapest Memorandum the United States and several other countries, laughably including Russia, gave security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for it getting rid of the worlds 3d largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Following the Russian annexation of Crimea, the US went on to say that these guarantees did not specify military intervention. International agreements are enforced only when it is in the signatories best interest, otherwise a "loophole" is found or they are simply ignored. Relying on anoth

China worried about the logical consequences of its own provocations against Japan as well as failing to heel those of North Korea (who essentially only China has open lines of communication).

Actually, I think you're wrong on both accounts. The military in China is a little bit crazy. Did you know that they are pledged by the constitution to support the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) rather than China itself? Think about that for a while. The civilian CCP government does control the PLA (People's Liberation Army), but for years now the PLA has been gaining in influence. I'm not sure even the CCP government really cares all that much about its provocations any more because they don't believe anybody will stand up to them, not even the USA.

China and North Korea are stuck with each other. Russia had the good sense to get out of that crazy game of financially supporting them early in Yeltsin's presidency, and that left China holding the bag. China doesn't have as much influence as you might think, nor do they use what little they have as well as they could. It's not well known by the public, but China has a lot of business deals with North Korea where basically they get rare earths and other minerals for below market rates. These deals are very important to China and are the main reason they prop up North Korea. China is really tired of North Korea behaving badly and causing trouble in its backyard, but they fear even more a united democratic Korea that might (who knows?) have US troops stationed in it near the Chinese border. So like it or not, they are committed firmly to the status quo because it represents a "least evil" option to them. When China says that they want a nuclear free Korean peninsula, they are quite sincere about that. They don't trust North Korea to maybe not use a nuke against them in anger or by mistake as their missile systems might simply go the wrong way and blow up in China by accident. But they aren't willing to do anything to get rid of the Kims and the Kims aren't getting rid of their nukes because they believe that their family survival depends on it. The only ways that North Korea is ever going to be nuclear free is that either the US is going to attack them and gamble that they can destroy their few nuclear missiles before they leave North Korean airspace or (much less likely) the regime will collapse quickly for some unforeseen reason and the new government will get rid of the nukes.

There are parts of your rather thoughtful assessment that I agree, and parts that I disagree with.

they fear even more a united democratic Korea that might (who knows?) have US troops stationed in it near the Chinese border.

I'm not sure that's the fear. A unified Korea, assuming from the South, would no longer require U.S. troop presence. And if the South managed to unify Korea, they'd be more likely to kick the U.S. troops out than to keep them there. The only reason the South Koreans tolerate the U.S. is because that keeps North Korea out. Keep in mind that South Korea (and Japan) are not grateful for the U.S. presence. They tolerate it and only because they have to. Taiwan is the only one who's amicable to the relationship, and they're growing closer and closer to the mainland every day (they'll still like Americans, but they know the money's in China). But there's no U.S. base in Taiwan either.

They don't trust North Korea to maybe not use a nuke against them in anger or by mistake as their missile systems might simply go the wrong way and blow up in China by accident.

You have to understand that China's need is economic growth at the moment. China is afraid of North Korea provoking war against the South. They're not so afraid of a unified Korea under the North regime if it just ended there. However, if the North ever took over the South, the next logical step would be to attack Japan. And this is especially true if North Korea had nukes. There would be absolutely no restraint from the rabid war dogs in the North against Japan. You do not understand hatred until you speak to a Korean about the Japanese (even the South Koreans, who are friendlier than their batshit crazy cousins up north).

Such an action (the war, obviously) would destabilize the region enormously. The U.S. would be involved. China would be involved. Russia would be involved. Even India and much of Western Europe would be dragged into the conflict. That's the last thing China wants to see, because there's a lot of risk there with little to no reward. The risk is greater U.S. or Soviet--I mean Russian--influence in the area after the war concludes, or even of MAD.

Even if North Korea magically discovers the ICBM and hits the U.S. with nukes, China would have lost, because the U.S. is really fueling the majority of China's economic growth. Now, when China has entered a period of economic self-sufficiency, their tune with regards to a nuclear North Korea may change. But for now, North Korea is a massive sore point for China.

the Kims aren't getting rid of their nukes because they believe that their family survival depends on it.

After Bush put Iran, North Korea, and Iraq in the so-called "Axis of Evil", are you surprised? Iran is also seeking nukes. And don't forget Pakistan, which is probably more unstable and more hostile to the U.S., was not included in this list for one very big, radioactive reason. The survival of the North Korean (as well as Iranian) state does depend on it. Hell, if Libya or Egypt or Syria had nukes, the western powers would have been helping the government, not helping rebels fight against it.

The only ways that North Korea is ever going to be nuclear free is that either the US is going to attack them and gamble that they can destroy their few nuclear missiles before they leave North Korean airspace or (much less likely) the regime will collapse quickly for some unforeseen reason and the new government will get rid of the nukes.

I'm not sure you get how other countries feel about the U.S., in particular those under the "Axis of Evil" label. The only way North Korea will not seek the bomb is if the U.S. implodes and collapses on itself. Full stop. Same with Iran.

The difference between a conventional explosive and a nuclear one is that in one case, when the damage is done and minutes later the region is inhabitable again... in the other, add a dozen orders of magnitude and it *may* be safe to return.

Actually deaths from conventional firebombings were of similar in magnitude of lives lost and destruction.

And (like coal), burning things produces a lot of long term pollutants that raise the cancer and early mortality rate. It is more what you are "used" to. Coal actually kills 167.5 people per terrawatt each and every year than nuclear. Coal deaths number in the thousands and when coal seams get set on fire- the area can be uninhabitable for decades (like nuclear) and be polluted for centuries with mercury and dioxins (very similar to radiation). Fukishima made 780 square kilometers uninhabitable. The Jhaqira coal fire has made 700 square kilometers uninhabitable. And the smoke affects 400,000 people continuously day in day out.

Conventional bombs from world war I are polluting water in france and belgium and killed two belgium workers in march.

We have some weird reaction to nuclear because we are not used to it. Conventional mines have left some areas uninhabitable and are still killing and maiming people decades later.

The after effects of acoustic shock from "ordinary" bombing can linger until a persons premature death years later.

I agree nukes are terrible. But I think your "comfort" and familiarity with conventional weapons leads you to overestimate their long and short term safety.

You do realize that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are currently inhabited, don't you? In fact, they were inhabited shortly after the bombs there exploded.

Nuclear weapons are not designed to render areas uninhabitable. They're designed to make a gigantic explosion, and that's it. Making the area uninhabitable, sorta like the Romans did with Carthage, is not one of the design goals.

There are some important parts you are leaving out. Decent tools can be used for evil or for good, like how conventional explosives can save thousands of lives a years by taking away much of the effort of mining. And they can be used in warfare in a reasonably safe fashion against an enemy's military. Yes, killing hundreds, thousands, or millions, but exclusively adult male military personnel. Sure, you add in some small margin of error but it is still minimal. And yes you can carpet bomb an entire continen

I'm not saying they're not worse, I'm saying that being the victim of something doesn't make people less likely to do that to someone else. I'll bet you that right now as we speak there is a 1 legged guy somewhere in Africa setting a land-mine.

in the other, add a dozen orders of magnitude and it *may* be safe to return.

Actually, the sites of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are inhabitable today, or would be. Both sites are public parks (the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park [wikipedia.org] and the Nagasaki Peace Park [wikipedia.org]), which were opened in the 1950s.

I sat in a cafe along a river in Hiroshima a couple of years ago wondering where the mutant and clouds of dry ice blowing about were. Very disappointing as a 'Forbidden Zone', very pleasant as a place to eat dinner.

Based on the content of lots of Japanese pop culture, I don't think that the Japanese feel a lot different about their government either.

As long as there are belligerent nations in close proximity to each other there will be interest in powerful weapons, even if the persons that would be responsible for such developments might find them in distaste. Do recall that Nobel thought that Dynamite would make war so horrible that no one would want to

Everybody in the modern world should get out of bed every morning and thank $deity for Harry Truman's decision to drop those two little bombs. If the world hadn't seen firsthand what those bombs were capable of, we certainly would have found another excuse to try them out, lots and lots more, with much bigger yields. Maybe Korea, maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis, maybe Viet Nam; first a "tactical" nuke or two, then an all-out exchange. Harry Truman should be sainted.

And yet, to my point, the reason you're arguing the way you are is because you've SEEN what those bombs can do. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been firebombed a la Dresden, few would remember or care, they certainly wouldn't be second-guessing the decision 70 years later.

Japan was not "tapped out". It's well documented that their backs were against the wall and they were prepared to throw the bodies of every last fighting man, woman and child into the expected land invasion by the allies, and it would have been a horrific bloody mess. So many casualties were anticipated from the planned allied invasion that the US started pumping out Purple Heart medals in advance of the action and so many were manufactured that those same medals are still being awarded today.

Hell, even AFTER the nukes were dropped some of the more rabid Japanese commanders still wanted to continue the fight and nearly mutinied. If the bombs hadn't been dropped to show overwhelming tactical advantage, their collective spirit wouldn't have broken, and the deaths, casualties and mass suicides during the Okinawa invasion would have been repeated on a far larger scale.

In 1944, Lt. Hiroo Onoda was sent by the Japanese army to the remote Philippine island of Lubang. His mission was to conduct guerrilla warfare during World War II. Unfortunately, he was never officially told the war had ended; so for 29 years, Onoda continued to live in the jungle, ready for when his country would again need his services and information. Eating coconuts and bananas and deftly evading searching parties he believed were enemy scouts, Onoda hid in the jungle until he finally emerged from the dark recesses of the island on March 19, 1972.

The Japanese are bad motherfuckers. All of this surrender talk is just disrespectful. It has the appearance of being something sweet and liberal but it's really just blatant racism. You think that they are weak inferior non-white people that be "easily dealt with".

The Germans fought tooth and nail and so did the Russians. We would do no different if the roles had been reversed.

The germans didn't run out of fuel and weapons. The germans had endless bombs, they had processes to turn natural gas into diesel (and they had tons of nat), and they didn't stop until we came in and kicked their asses. They still had weapons to fight with.

The Japanese were running out of fuel, they were out of bombs. All they had left were bodies, and they were rapidly approaching a situation where they'd be trapped on a tiny island that we could just bomb the shit out of at our leisure. The whole c

There were no high level pleas for peace from Japan. Tojo and his government were of the opinion that Japan should go down in flames rather than surrender. And the Americans were likely concerned about the Soviets as well. A quick end to the war and surrender to the US was far preferable to what happened in Central and Eastern Europe. In the end the Soviets did seize some Japanese territory, and if the land invasion had gone ahead, at least some portion of the main islands would have ended up in the USSR's

There's a strong case to be made that the nuclear attack was NOT a science experiment, nor was it intended to (further) demoralize the Japanese. Rather, many historians would argue that the US, seeing the Cold War on the horizon, wanted to demonstrate to it's then-ally-but-clearly-future-enemy Russia just what America was capable of.

No, Imperial Japan was not suing for peace. A few diplomats were quietly floating the idea with Russia and living in complete fear that they would be discovered by the military and summarily executed for doing so. Even when the Emperor had decided to surrender and recorded a surrender message for the country elements of the military attacked the Imperial Palace to capture and destroy that recording and to "rescue" the emperor from the politicians who were leading him "astray".

"as many as one thousand officers raided the Imperial palace on the evening of August 14, to destroy the recording. The rebels were confused by the layout of the Imperial palace and were unable to find the recording, which had been hidden in a pile of documents. The recording was successfully smuggled out of the palace in a laundry basket of women's underwear and broadcast the following day, although another attempt was made to stop it from being played at the radio station."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]

The majority of the Imperial Japanese leadership would only consider an armistice, a peace treaty, like that of WW1 (1919) that would leave Imperial Japanese leadership intact and the home islands unoccupied.

They had run out of bombs, and the kamikaze were coming because they had no fuel to get back to Japan; die in the ocean, or die smashing your plane into a military target.

No. Weapons and ammunition had been stockpiled. This included kamikaze aircraft and boats. Also Kamikazes took off with the full knowledge of and the intent to crash their aircraft into their target.

The arguments around this drift over time. A lot of veterans have started telling me Japan was ready to drop plague-infested fleas on America. They'd hit California, and it would wipe out the entire nation. They've already tested them on China, and it worked.... except China wasn't wiped out, and Japan could never reach California.

The test in China was a limited test. They bombed a couple of villages and sent doctors in to examine the results. The tests included the use of a ceramic bomb casing that fractured and dispersed fleas using a very small charge that allowed most of the fleas to survive. Imperial Japan had successfully, although ineffectively, attacked the US pacific coast with balloons that drifted across the Pacific and dropped incendiary bombs. However the real plan regarding the fleas was to use submarine based aircraft. Yes, submarine based. Imperial Japan developed and built several submarines with a waterproof compartment on top that could house two or three aircraft. They were technological marvels that the US captured, studied, and sunk to avoid having to share them with the Russians.

The whole story paints a narrative where varied analysis tells you that either it's made-up completely, or Japan has a weapon that kills as many people as a conventional drop-bomb.

"This research led to the development of the defoliation bacilli bomb and the flea bomb used to spread bubonic plague.[28] Some of these bombs were designed with ceramic (porcelain) shells, an idea proposed by Ishii in 1938.
These bombs enabled Japanese soldiers to launch biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells, and other areas with anthrax, plague-carrier fleas, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and other deadly pathogens."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
"They were submarine aircraft carriers able to carry three Aichi M6A Seiran aircraft underwater to their destinations...The I-400-class was designed with the range to travel anywhere in the world and return"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]

It's pretty widely believed that Japan essentially *has* nuclear weapons. But by not completing the final assembly of the warheads, they don't violate the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Estimates on how much time it would take to assemble the warheads should they decide to violate that treaty range from hours to months.

No, their position is not that they could violate the Treaty. The theory is that if they want to withdraw from the Treaty, then they could weaponize ASAP, with the only bottleneck on manufacturing.And no, that doesn't mean they already "have" them. I know tenses are hard, but come on. If that means they "have" them already, and they turn out not to build them for decades, then when they do finally build them, by your logic they'd have already had them for decades!

Japan lives in a dangerous neighborhood, China is an expansive power making threats in the South China Sea, and the Obama Administration has proven feckless at supporting allies (see also: Ukraine, Iraq).

The fact that nuclear weapons offend the tender sensibilities of Western liberals doesn't enter into their political calculations.

What is the theory, here? Do you think they'd have some sort of irrational fear based on things that happened before they were born, or would they just feel awkward? I really don't see how this is a valid theory of military behavior...

Yes. Japans aging population against China's 1.x billion people.Long standing animosity between the two countries.The Japanese probably see Weakening US resolve to stand up to China over Taiwan and realize that it might not be an isolated phenomenon.Tensions with Russia over the Kurile islands.North Korea has not only fired rockets over Japan, but also shown time and time again the desire to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

I think if Japan were sufficiently provoked, yes, I think they would build a nuclear bomb. I have a pretty good suspicion, considering Japans technical sophistication, that a nuclear weapons program would not be hard to achieve, and clearly China knows this.

The Chinese government still uses Japan and the atrocities committed in the 1930s and 1940s as a bogeyman to distract from the atrocities committed by the Chinese government against it's own people in the 1940s and 1950s.

Which Chinese government? The KMT under Chiang Kai-Shek, or the CCP under Mao? The KMT was arguably far more corrupt than the CCP and deserved to be exiled to Taiwan. The KMT also did not control China, it only controlled a third-to-half of China. And if you argue that the KMT was the recognized government of China at the time, then you have to acknowledge that the KMT under CKS committed atrocities against the Communists (see the Long March) when it could have devoted those resources instead to driving th

The Chinese government still uses Japan and the atrocities committed in the 1930s and 1940s as a bogeyman to distract from the atrocities committed by the Chinese government against it's own people in the 1940s and 1950s.

Let's not forget the Cultural Revolution (1960s). I don't think I have ever seen figures over the deathtoll that were lower than a million.

The lowest estimate on Wikipedia is 23 million. Most of them are closer to 40. That's pretty much the combined population of the two largest cities in China, Beijing and Shanghai, dead in the space of a few years.

Oh come on. The Japan of 2014 is not the Japan of 1945. Virtually everyone from that generation is dead or beyond any political influence. I have some issues with Japan over its acceptance of some its activities during its empire days, but all in all, it has been a well behaved member of the international community and one of the West's most important Asian allies. I doubt it even wants to have nuclear weapons, but considering the way China has been behaving of late, any prudent Japanese government is going to want to make it clear that it's lack of nuclear deterrent is due to the decision not to have one, and not because of any technical difficulties.

China cannot continue to poke its neighbors with sticks and not expect that those neighbors will not begin to ponder just how much longer they're going to be poked. Japan is a major industrial power, one of the wealthiest and most advanced nations on the planet, and if China doesn't want to feel threatened by Japan, then it needs to stop pushing buttons itself.

The China of 2014 is moving as quickly as it can towards becoming a major military power, and let us not forget that China is a nuclear power, so the idea that even if Japan went all the way, amended its constitution and formed a fully fleshed armed forces with nuclear capability (and everyone already believes that Japan is already nuclear capable), that it would mean the imminent invasion of China.

China does not fear invasion, or anything like it. What it fears is that its own imperial ambitions will be completely constrained.

The militaristic Japan of the last century is a useful propaganda bogeyman for China, but as a real threat to anything but contested maritime boundaries, it doesn't exist.

They were in armistice negotiations, for good reason the US and their allies wanted unconditional surrender. Plus showing the Soviets the power of our new toys kept their ambitions in check for a while.

And, yet, China seems to be the one annexing islands and redefining boundaries.

By some standards, China is more or less invading both Japan and Vietnam now.

Who is the bigger threat? The closed communist government whose every public statement is a deluded fit of lies gets my vote. Have you ever read a press release out of China? It reads like bad fiction written by a delusional psychotic.

Maybe if China is 'worried' about Japan, they need to look at their own actions and understand why Japan might be feeling the need to be able to protect themselves.

"Living History". Japan invaders were thrown out of China some *75 years ago*. Not too many people left who have personal memories of it, any more.

I'm neither Japanese nor Chinese so the closest I can get to relating to the way the Chinese might feel about the Japanese and WWII (and at the same time unfortunately Godwining this thread) is that my great uncle spent years in a Nazi KZ camp, and my grandfather was arrested and worked over by the Gestapo for treason. No living memory there but I was raised by people who experienced the Third Reich first hand and it still makes my skin crawl whenever I hear one of the latest crop of European right-wing pop

While true, if you look at Japanese and Chinese history, the Chinese did the vast majority of the invading-and-pillaging. That gives additional context for the current illegal claims that China is making over Japanese, Vietnamese, Philippine, and others' territory.

This is one reason why everyone is worried about China's military assertiveness lately. It is not just because of the threat China poses, but the greater threat of a military Japan. Historically Japan kicks China's butt in military contests. Then, in the case of WWII, Japan careens out of control. Don't be a bully China if you don't want to get bloodied.

Historically, that was only true in the 20th century. The only reason Japan survived as long as it did was due to two factors: 1) remarkably lucky bad weather drowning Kublai Khan's invasion fleet, and 2) A shogunate that decided to isolate itself from the world to avoid drawing further Chinese invasions plus focus on eliminating all foreign influences. China historically has had the manpower and the naval power to take on and defeat Japan. The 20th century was when that changed. Now Japan's got an aging so

The balance of power between China and Japan is reversing with incredible speed. There's no need to go back to Kublai Khan to explain this. In 1995 Japan's GDP was 733% that of China's. In 2012 it was 72% of China's. What else do you need to know?

Not only that, but medium range ballisistic missiles are also mid 1940s tech.

The main difficulty is that currently enrighment facilities are large and easy to spot provided a country doesn't already have a vibrant reprocessing industry (necessary for efficient use of nuclear fuels).

Many of the things useful for figuring out how to make both of those (e.g. computer simulations, high speed measuring equipment) are nor vastly more advanced and cheaper, the physics is better understood and the basic research is done and dusted.

Pertty much any highly industrialised nation could easily develop nukes and an almost unstoppable delivery system if they wanted to, provided no one threatened them enough to make them stop.

The idea that Japan could enrich plutonium and turn it into nuclear weapons, which China is trying to push here, is full of "mights". Their logic is essentially:

- Japan didn't report 640kg of Mixed Oxide Fuel in an offline reactor because they didn't believe they had to. MOX is useless for making nuclear weapons by itself without further processing.

- Plutonium can be extracted from MOX, and Japan is doing this, but they reported all of the plutonium they extracted from MOX to the IAEA.

- Japan has a surplus stock of plutonium that they're not really supposed to have, but this is understandable given that plutonium is probably a pain to move around, and they have plans to use it as fuel in breeder reactors in the future.

- Japan has shown no inclination to produce nuclear weapons outside of a few studies, all of which are well over a decade old and have been known about for years.

- In China's mind, all of these things, which are circumstantial at best, indicate that Japan MIGHT be considering the production of nuclear weapons.

From what it sounds like, Japan could've had nuclear weapons years ago if they really wanted to. China merely doesn't want them to have the capability because it means they'd have a much harder time bullying Japan over things like the Senkaku islands.

They have nuclear power plants... and all the industry to make nuclear bombs and missiles.

It is quite likely they have a few that they don't talk about just as Israel has a few they don't talk about. And while we're at it, South Korea probably has a couple as well.

The forces of our coalition are the superior military force. Do not doubt it.

An enemy might sucker punch us or be so pitiful that we don't feel it sporting to slaughter them to a man... but we are stronger. And we shall remain stronger for generations to come. Too many generations came before that planned for wars and conquests for the fruits of that effort to be be gone so quickly.

Given that the Ukraine situation has just given the world an example of what nuclear-capable allies do when a nuclear-capable country invades a country without that capability (which is essentially to finger-wag and frown at the invader), could anyone really blame Japan if they did opt to arm themselves?

It's been known for years now that Japan and Germany are "nuclear-capable" nations. They have everything they need to start a nuclear program, and could probably get there in a year if they wanted to.

Up to now, they haven't wanted to. Japan, however, is threatened by not one but two nuclear-armed nations. China is looking to expand everywhere, and is particularly ready to fight over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (brief aside: if you look at them on a map, they're closest to Taiwan - let's give it to them and piss both China and Japan off, if they can't find a way to just share the oil). And then there's North Korea, which has practically made a cult out of hating America and Japan, and has been lobbing missiles towards Japan just to get attention. They haven't been stupid enough to actually attack them yet, but I certainly can't fault Japan for getting concerned about it.

it's even more fascinating to realize Japanese scientists and engineers are extremely gifted at optimizing and refining. I'm curious what improvements and innovations they can make to the ulam-teller system every other country with thermonuclear weapons use.

I would expect Japan to re-militarize. With China ever increasingly flexing its military power in the region it might be good to have a strong military in Japan. And notice it is the Chinese who are worried more then anyone else.

Japan has had the technical know-how to build nuclear weapons since the 1970s, certainly.

The concern China expresses over the Japanese nuclear program is precisely the same concern a bully expresses when some local kid starts taking karate lessons.

My main concern is that this may motivate the Chinese to increase their timetable for local seizure of various contested properties, in order to establish them as Chinese by fait accompli before Japan actually nuclearises and freezes the situation into a status quo. Of course, that would only increase Japan's motivation to militarize..

A vicious cycle indeed; unfortunately, to expect China to behave toward its neighbors as anything other than Fascist Italy is apparently unrealistic.

Russia - yeah, they have nukes and are armed, but everyone knows that in their Soviet incarnation, their main objective was the West. Yeah, they had a rivalry w/ China during the Cold War, but after that ended, China & Russia have been a de-facto bloc, agreeing on everything, whether it's support for Syria or Iran, opposition to Islamic Jihadis on their borders & so on.

Mongolia - has never been a threat to China since the Khanates; if anything, it's been the other way around in the last few centuries. Mongolia in fact embraced Russia so that the latter could keep them independent from China

North Korea - yeah, they have nukes, but they've always been a vassal of Beijing. Since when do countries feel threatened by their friends having nukes?

South Korea - yeah, they have US troops there, no nukes, and those troops are there to stop the Kims from walking into Seoul. Not there to take a stroll to Beijing or skate over the Great wall.

Japan - hasn't been a threat to anyone, but given North Korean posturing, and China backing them, who can blame them if the post WWII restriction on Japan rearming is removed and they decide to arm themselves?

Taiwan - yeah, a real threat to China, whose potential declaration of independence would bring down the Communist regime, given the way Beijing reacts to such moves

Vietnam/Malaysia/Philippines - have dispute w/ China over islands in the South China sea, whose possession would threaten China's very existence

Laos - still in China's orbit.

Myanmar - regime very friendly to China

India - does have nukes, but this was a decade long effort since the 1960s, when China defeated India in a war. India never needed nukes against Pakistan, who they defeated in 1947/65/71/95, but they did recognize that they were at a disadvantage against China, who had conquered Tibet, and could devour Bhutan and Nepal. Nepal now has a pro-Maoist regime, and India, despite its stockpiles, now has a nuclear Pakistan to worry about, not just China.

China does have one genuine threat that I agree w/ them on - the Jihadi threat on their West by the Uyghurs. In the ex Soviet 'stans', the Islamic movement of Turkestan, which is a Jihadi campaign to restore the Timuride empire, is out to topple secular regimes in those countries in order to achieve that. Included in their Jihad is the liberation of Xinxiang, or 'East Turkestan'. This has been a real - as opposed to imagined - cause of worry to Beijing, and has caused them to dilute the Turkic populations there by settling Han Chinese there in huge numbers.

So yeah, China does have real threats. Japan simply ain't one of them. Not unless and until the Chinese totally unleash the North Koreans.

It's not really much plutonium. Sure, you can make about 40 city-sized Fat Man bombs out of it, but the scale is kind of pointless now: with a little hydrogen, you can turn a 14kg bomb up to eleven, and get yields that could blow up half of Japan instead of one small city.

So, Japan can make 40 bombs. If Japan had only 20kg of plutonium, it could still make 3 or 4 devastating small warheads with fusion-boosted-fission, enough to blow holes in Russia or devastate the United States.

If you think that's unrealistic, take a crash course in nuclear weapons. Fat Man had 14,000 grams of plutonium; it converted less that 1 gram into energy before the plutonium core blew apart. A fission-boosted-fusion bomb uses that explosion to trigger nuclear fusion in a second stage, which provides compressive force to hold the core together: the plutonium ball that burns a gram and blows apart now gets crushed together. With the right structure, you can burn 100 grams of the fuel, making the bomb 100 times bigger. A 1kg bomb would still be 7 times bigger than the 14kg Fat Man bomb.

Some serious upgrades have been made to nuclear weapons. They're largely conventional explosive, with a little nuclear core; some are boosted with fusion, which sometimes has startling effects--once, they had a blast go off 100 times bigger than the models projected.

Nuclear weapons are devastating. A handful of nuclear fuel is an arsenal. When you start getting into truckloads of fissile material, you're just wasting effort.

Three or four bombs won't devastate a continent. The tsar bomba, the largest device ever tested at 50MT, had a destructive overpressure radius of ~35km, enough to flatten a capital city, but hardly enough to scare a continent. Plus such large devices are impractical, you have to get a large slow bomber into enemy territory. No, a few dozen half megaton warheads like the W88 but with less precise designs (the W88 is designed to take out missile silos) would be sufficient for MAD.